Editorializing

Not that you asked, but...
I love editorials, whether officially sanctioned editorial board pieces, letters to the editor, or political cartoons (such as by Tom Toles and Pat Oliphant).

Here is a nice example of an informative editorial piece, one which I'd encourage potential Democratic voters to read. The New York Times has endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. Why do I recommend you read an article endorsing Hillary? Because it is a good example of the informative nature of editorials, it is well argued, and it includes much praise for my preferred candidate. :)

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two.

It's the less major issues, like adherence to machine politics, that do it for me, but I'll leave that argument for another day. Regardless of my issues with the Clinton campaign, I am very excited that the Democrats overall have such a decent crop of candidates this year and that the primaries, although too expensive for my tastes, are at least getting people across the country involved.

You may now return to your regular Friday frivolity. :)

UPDATE: I realize now that op-ed is the more accurate label for the news articles I recommended. In this opinion piece in the Jan 27 NY Times, Caroline Kennedy says that she had never before been inspired by a candidate like people did during her father's campaign. She supports Barack Obama's bid for presidency.